"When you are in a relationship, why does the man still need to look at porno magazines?" blogger Sally recently asked me in an email.

She says that, while her partner doesn't look at the pictures in front of her, he does it behind her back and it makes her feel "not worthy enough" and "not good enough in his eyes".

So what's the go? "We have been together for nearly 2 years and we have lived together for 1.5 years," she writes. "Don't get me wrong - I like porn as well when I'm in the mood, but I guess I would be interested to hear what other males have to say."

While recently watching an Oprah Winfrey Show rerun titled Boys Will Be Boys, I was intrigued when the queen of chat relayed the stats that 70 per cent of men aged 18-34 viewed internet porn once a month.

"Once an hour is more like it," smirked Bruce Cameron, author of How To Remodel A Man, a guest on the show alongside Sports Illustrated magazine's Rick Reilly, singer Brian McKnight and the Tonight Show's Jay Leno.

Leno then told Winfrey (who appeared a little shocked) that he suspected females were into it too. He also said that women should not feel betrayed if their blokes liked to look because "men tend to need visual stimulants".

But she wasn't buying it. "Jay, how would [your wife] Mavis feel if you were looking at porn every day?" she asked. And while Leno said it wouldn't be an issue, it took him about five minutes to get the answer out as he stumbled on his words ...

True, pornography is often about fantasy, curiosity and fun. Or so say the blokes.

But when I posed Sally's question to a 35-year-old male work colleague of mine (who had recently broken off a long-term relationship), he told me that it's a huge generalisation to say that all men in relationships watch porn, yet admits that most men probably do.

"There's a difference looking at porn as a single man than as a taken man," he says. "It's obvious why a single man would, but with a taken man it's different altogether. I can only answer for myself, but when you're in a long-term relationship, it's easy to get into a dull routine.

"After the initial sexual spark is gone, looking at porn is a way to get the guy excited and interested again. We're not daydreaming about the other woman - we're there to make our own relationship improve!" Or so we hope.

But watching porn can work in two ways. According to my mate, it can either spice up the relationship, or it can act as a replacement for needs that aren't being met in a relationship. And if this is the case, then you need to know when the warning bells start to ring.

"If your own sex life is inadequate, and you're finding that your partner is constantly watching porn instead of paying attention to you, then you know there's a bigger problem. But note that it doesn't have anything to do with the habit, it's to do with the connection between the two people," he says.

And there's more bad news for Sally.

These days, with the easy accessibility of porn on the internet, it's been found to contribute to more divorces than ever before.

In fact, while members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers expected to get a little shut eye during the 2003 conference, (how exciting can a lawyer's seminar really get?) everyone was pleasantly (and some unpleasantly) surprised at the mention of online porn, which was relevant to the day since it was found to have contributed to more than half of the divorces that year!

That said, we can forgive men for indulging in a little now and then. After all, we know that men are visual creatures, and, as Winfrey notes, "Boys will be boys."

So what's the best advice to Sally, and to all women? (And this is straight from the mouths of average porn-loving blokes!) Never, ever be strict about it, no matter how much you abhor the thought (or sound) of it.

"Guys will always find a way to look at porn," says one married Lothario (who by the way is extremely devoted). "If you say don't to a man, it'll simply make him want to look at it even more."

Why do men watch porn if they're in a relationship? Would you be OK with your partner watching it?

- Samantha Brett
- Sam and the City: Modern Love: How the Blog Generation Do It,
(Harlequin, $19.95) is available now from all good bookshops and department stores.
- More of Sam and the City
- More AGE blogs

Yet despite all the hype over a supposed selfish world, when I was recently in New York, I was intrigued (along with the rest of the city) by the story of a 50-year-old construction worker named Wesley Autrey. He was quietly waiting at a New York train station earlier this month when 19-year-old Cameron Hollopeter had a seizure and fell helplessly onto the tracks as an oncoming train approached.

Autrey had to make a split-second decision, so he did, and he jumped in.

He covered Hollopeter with his own body as the train passed overhead, pushing them both down into a tiny space that was only a foot deep.

"Five cars rolled overhead before the train stopped, the cars passing inches from his head, smudging his blue knit cap with grease," The New York Times reported.

"Autrey heard onlookers' screams. 'We're OK down here,' he yelled, 'but I've got two daughters up there. Let them know their father's OK.' He heard cries of wonder, and applause."

Both men survived, unscathed. When questioned why he did it, he simply replied with, "What I did, every New Yorker should do."

A true hero, the New York press gushed. And while his story is just one of many of people who risk their lives everyday to save others, everyone, including me, began to ask the following question: Would I do the same?

True, it's not every day we're faced with the opportunity to save a life, but what about in our very own relationships? How important is it to be unselfish and how many relationships suffer from selfish behaviour?

Charles Darwin predicted that, when faced with the choice of helping others at our own expense, individuals would act selfishly to serve their self-interest.

Yet what if everyone thought this way? Would our relationships be doomed?

I decided to pose the question to sexologist Stacey Demarco who says that unselfish acts are the key to a good relationship. And good news for the faint of heart - we don't necessarily have to save our partner's life. Instead, she says, it's the simplest unselfish acts that can be the most powerful.

"Listening is the most unselfish act that you can do in any relationship," she tells me.

Relationship expert Alice Haemmerle takes a different approach. "It's important for both people to get their needs met. Men need to help around the house more by doing some of the domestics, and women need to give back to men - perhaps by doing some of things the things men like, in the bedroom ..."

And a work colleague confides to me that his girlfriend's selfish acts are what is eating away at their relationship.

"She goes out some nights with her friends and doesn't bother to call and tell me where she is. You've got to let the other person know you're safe, otherwise they'll worry about you, and it's a very selfish thing to do - to only think of yourself and make someone worried sick over you."

When I point out that his girlfriend often cooks him his favourite dinner (unselfishly), he tells me this: "If someone is always cooking you dinner and you're doing nothing back for them, then absolutely that's pretty selfish too. I do think it's important to be proactive in a relationship... it's just that I yet learnt to cook."

But as Joyce Meyer, minister and TV presenter of Enjoying Every Day Life once said, "One of the key things for people as far as joy is concerned is not living a selfish, self-centered lifestyle where we live our lives expecting everybody else to do something for us ... "

Good news ahead! You don't have to strike up a conversation with someone or even check out their body language to determine their personality. Instead, steal a glance of what they're swigging and you'll immediately be able to tell who they are, what they're interested in and how they like their bedroom action.

Not convinced? Neither was I. But social researchers, determined to figure out the truth behind your choice of grog, undertook an extensive study at a popular bar in London . They questioned customers on their signature drink, put them through a psychometric test and found that yes indeed, certain drinks match certain personality traits,

Chartered psychologist Ros Taylor, who helped administer the poll, wasn't too surprised by the findings. "It's understandable as everything that we do is an extension of ourselves," she told BBC News. "Outward signs give an indication and clue to what a person is about, such as clothes or hair style. It is not the drink that makes the person, but rather the person who, quite literally in this instance, makes the drink."

If you like your vodka or white wine, you have an entrepreneurial spirit, like to be in charge and have an opinion on everything.

Tequila drinkers are extroverts, free spirits and unconcerned about what lies in the future, or even the next day for that matter. But who cares? You're so much fun that everyone around you ends up doing just the same.

Like your beer? You're experimental and creative, enjoy jazz, media and unusual art and like to interact with "off the wall" types of people.

Not convinced of the findings in the study? Well you're not alone. Hence seven New York bartenders were asked if they could nail a woman's personality based on what she drinks (and how you approach them if you're interested in them). Though interviewed separately, they concurred on almost all counts. The results:

While women who drink beer are down to earth and low maintenance, if a girl orders something blended, it's a sure-fire sign for gents to watch out. Why? Apparently these chicks are flaky, annoying and a general pain in the butt. "Avoid her, unless you want to be her cabin boy!" the bartenders snarl.

If your date requests a shot? Then there's good news for the boys: "She's looking to get drunk... and naked," they say.

And if she orders White Zin, the bartenders conclude that "she's easy; thinks she is classy and sophisticated, and actually has no clue".

Then there's the martini. Made famous by James Bond in the 50s, (who liked his shaken, not stirred), Lauren Weiss from New York-based web portal Method Shop, reckons the girl who orders a "dirty goose" (buzz word for a dirty with Greygoose vodka), is in the mood for anything and everything.

"She can handle things the way they are, and likes it 'straight up' and 'stiff'. Just like the olives in her drink, this girl is smooth around the edges..."

But Weiss warns gents who date a woman with a Cosmopolitan in her hand: "The ladies who love this ultimate pink drink are Sex and the City fanatics, tabloid loving, overly-made up chicks, who spend most of their time getting manicures or gossiping over lattes about the latest styles and hottest celebrities. She is easily taken home, not because she is easy, but because she can't handle her liquor ... two or three of them and she will be leaning against you whispering in your ear before the DJ even arrives. She is an easy win, but just as long as she is out since she can't miss an episode of Laguna Beach."

Ouch. I think I'll stick to beers ...

What's your favourite drink? What do certain drinks say about a person?

- Samantha Brett
- Sam and the City: Modern Love: How the Blog Generation Do It,
(Harlequin, $19.95) is available now from all good bookshops and department stores.
- More of Sam and the City
- More SMH blogs

Gents hold onto those cheesy one-liners and girls keep those witty comebacks for later because what I am about to reveal might startle and shock. If you're looking for a way to tell if Mr. or Mrs. Might-be-Right is really that into you, then look down. (And no, it's not where you're thinking!)

Experts reckon the key to telling whether a person is interested in you, is to look at their shoes. Yep, if someone's got the hots for you, they'll subconsciously point their feet towards yours.

By his reckoning, sexual signals in the form of body language is nothing new. "For all of our technological advances and psychological insights, when it comes to the silent signs of sexual attraction, we are no different than beasts," writes Givens. "For the past 500 million years, every member of the animal kingdom has utilized certain signals to communicate their interest in mating. These boil down to the message: 'I am harmless; I won't bite.'"

And while a quick sneak peak at their shoes proves that your date might indeed not bite, the signs don't stop there ...

According to Britain's Social Issues Research Centre, a whopping 93 per cent of our communication is actually through our gestures. In other words, we shouldn't listen to a darn word anyone is saying!

Yet deciphering the meaning of hands, feet and faces is no easy feat. In fact dating expert Tracey Cox reckons that most men get it wrong most of the time. "What [men] think is a direct come-on is often experimental flirting on our part - or sheer politeness," she writes in her tome Hot Relationships: How To Have One.

"Ahuh! No wonder I'm not getting any action," chuckles my perpetually single friend when I tell him Cox's theory. Yet he's still mighty curious. "What exactly are the signs?" he desperately wants to know.

Cue in the eyebrow flash. "When we first see someone we're attracted to, our eyebrows rise and fall," says Cox who dubs the move a crucial telltale sign they're interested.

Once they've crossed over to your side of the room, it then takes roughly 90 seconds to decide if they're into you or not. If they like what they see, they'll stare intensely at your eyes, the size of their pupils will increase, they'll blink a lot and they'll stare at your mouth.

Women in lust will lick their lips, twirl their hair, uncross and cross their legs, and fondle with cylindrical objects like the stem of their wine glass or a pen. Men will fix their tie, pull up their socks and jut out their chests. (And don't forget to check out their feet...)

Body language is also the key to uncovering a liar.

Did that cute Lothario you've just met tell you he's a professional boxer or a bikini waxer? Did the sexy femme you've bought a drink claim she was an air hostess, or Britney Spear's personal assistant? Is your partner umming and ahhing over where they were last night? Or claiming they didn't bounce the credit card?

Red flag number one: face touching. When Bill Clinton was questioned over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he immediately reached up and touched his nose after declaring he didn't do it.

And it's not only Bill that proved this point. With loads of scientific studies to back this one up, apparently when people cover their mouths, it's a sign they're subconscious about what they're saying. Their ears turn red, they rub their nose, they shift their eye contact, turn their body slightly, sweat, use excessive hand movements and chew the inside of their mouth.

And if their feet are pointing away from yours? Then you know they're lying...

Can you tell if someone is interested in you, or lying to you, from their body language? What are the signs?

PS. My new book titled Sam and the City: Modern Love: How the Blog Generation Do It, published by Harlequin ($19.95) is available now from all good bookshops and department stores. Check out my website for upcoming signings and appearances!

Ah, the diva. She's demanding, fussy, pooh-poohs responsibility and is impossible to deal with. And yet she's irresistible to men. Why? No one understands really (is it because she looks good as a handbag, is good in bed or makes good scrambled eggs?), yet it's difficult to argue against the fact that men are genetically predisposed towards "goddesses".

Blogger Joseph agrees that most men want a woman who looks good on their arm, but reckons that the more in-demand she is, the more difficult she is to tolerate, and the more willing her boyfriend is to put up with it.

"I don't get why they put up with the crap these girls give them," he writes. "Maybe it's because men who date a diva believe they've won some sort of a prize."

And it seems Joseph is not alone ...

"The demise of the trophy wife!" tut-tutted the ABC News in response to research published in the British journal Labour Economics, which proved that more blokes are picking partners who earn similar salaries to them instead of someone who leeches and looks pretty.

"Woohoo!" yelled the down-to-earth, smart, intelligent and hard-working women who buy their own diamonds and pay their own bills. Yep, it seems the era of the diva might finally have come to an end.

When I posed the question on the appeal of the diva to a bunch of blokes on the weekend, they all agreed that, indeed, she's boring, self-obsessed and ridiculously demanding.

Yet the thing that surprised me was that they all admitted to having dated a diva in the past. And evident from the myriad of emails hitting my inbox, many blokes seem unable to escape her wrath, including blogger Dave, who writes this:

"When I fell in love with Kate, she wasn't a diva. She was kind and caring and funny. The minute things started to get serious, and we were thinking about the next step, the demands started pouring in. First she wanted me to pay for stuff, then she wanted to live in a certain suburb which at that time I couldn't afford and the final straw was that she wanted me to spend less time with my mates and more time with her. In the end, she became such a diva, she was sadly no longer the girl I fell in love with."

By the way, when I recounted his story to a diva friend of mine, she retorted back with, "But Kate’s requests are very reasonable!" (A truly diva-esque response.)

Comedian Chris Rock has other ideas. He reckons it's not only the diva who is demanding on her man, but it's actually a trait of all women, no matter what her status.

"In order for any relationship to work, both people have to be on the same page, both people have to have the same focus. And we all know what that page is, we all know what that focus is ... What's that focus? The focus is all about her!" he says.

One man responds to Rock's tirade on the Eternal Bachelor blogspot with this little gem:
"My wife gives over the whole of the weekend to pursuing what she calls 'me time'. She goes to retreats, yoga mini-breaks, a spa, a health farm, even art classes. All of which I pay for, of course. She got the Oprah memo."

In these liberated times, are there fewer men who simply want beauty over substance? Would you put up with a diva?

PS. Check out Chris Rock's piece on the topic - brilliant stuff.

PPS. Sam and the City will be back Monday. Have a fabulous Australia Day!

Does the thought of your ex pop up over and over again in your mind? Do you find yourself grabbing for the mobile phone whenever you've had a few drinks, frantically typing in the words "Wanna hook up?" at 3am? Do you tear up old photos of you two together (only to piece them back together when you're feeling sad), constantly compare them to your new beau (especially in the bedroom), and are unable to push them out of your mind no matter how many blind dates, hook-ups and hallucinogens you might have had? Then you could be suffering from Syndrome Ex.

Truth be told, I don't know anyone, aside from one friend who married their high school sweetheart, who doesn't suffer from the dreaded symptoms of Syndrome Ex.

There's the waking up in a sweat after having a nightmare (which involved the two of you getting back together); the shaking and tensing up whenever you pass the old favourite haunt where the two of you hung out, and the incessant driving by their place in the hope of not catching them ensconced in a passionate kiss someone else (otherwise known as stalking). After all, it's only been a mere two/five/ten years since you broke up.

Yet heed a word of advice: They say that after a break-up you should never return to the scene of the crime. As 19th century writer Charles Caleb Colton famously put it: "Friendship often ends in love; but love in friendship - never."

Yet these days, with people racking up more exes on their belts than skeletons (and shoes) in Paris Hilton's closet, it seems these old-fangled ex-rules might no longer apply.

Why? For a start we're marrying later than ever before (according to the ABS, the median age for men to marry is now 32 and for women it's 30), serial monogamy is a growing trend and one-night stands no longer shrug-worthy. Indeed if we shunned all our exes, would there be anyone left for us to hang out with?

The problem is that even if we tried deleting them from our mental inboxes, it's almost an impossible task. Even if they snored, made passes at our friends, or were a complete and utter nutcase, somehow they still manage to linger on (and on and on) in our psyches.

Plus what if you and your ex are in the same social circle? What if they work in the same building as you? Or worse - what if they're now dating one of your mates? Is it ever possible to truly let go?

My 50-year-old aunt recently spilled tears when she spoke about her ex-boyfriend, and this was the bloke she dated when she was 16. My best mate just declared to me he's no longer working at the bar he's been at for the last couple of years because the ex of his ex now works there too. (Sad but true.)

Yet another male friend of mine believes he's found the solution to curing the syndrome. "If you can't stop thinking about them and they're thinking about you, then why not just go back to them? I thought to myself, the only way I'm going to get over this is either move states, or move back in together. So my ex and I talked through our problems, set up some new rules and boundaries and realised that yes, we do have problems, but if we're missing each other so badly, then we should be able to sort them out without too much fuss."

Which brings us to sex with the ex. Nikki Gemmell, author of Pleasure (HarperCollins) dubs it as "Graveyard Sex" because by her reckoning, it's the type of sex that should be avoided at all costs.

Yet even Gemmell admits she once succumbed to the temptation, describing her bed-with-the-ex experience as melancholy, squalid and ghost-burdened. (Sound familiar?)

Maybe the idea of moving state to get rid of the Syndrome Ex isn't such a bad idea after all ...

Do you have an ex that is still on your mind? Can you ever truly get over an ex?

I often wonder what makes great people, with everything going for them, stay tied to toxic relationships.

Is it their embellished perceptions of their partners? Their ability to spin positive illusions about the relationship? The belief they've struck romantic gold just because they've found someone who actually wants to be with them? And why do so many people force themselves to believe they deserve a crappy existence when there are (excuse the cliche) so many more fish in the sea?

A close male friend of mine is battling it out in a relationship that has become so lethal that you wonder how he and his partner ever managed to get along in the first place.

True, make-up sex is the best kind, but, if it's the only kind they're ever having, is it really enough to sustain a long-term relationship?

In every new relationship many of us feel those initial doubts. Heck, some I know even refuse to become exclusive with a new partner until a few months into the relationship when they're absolutely certain that it's worth giving up a life of casual flings, drunken nights out and meaningless hook-ups.

But what if those doubts continue to hover over the relationship a little too long for comfort? Is it time for a new decision to be made?

"Absolutely not," our unhappy friends will tell us before spurting a number of ridiculous excuses as to why they refuse to end their relationships, no matter how many promising blind dates we line up for them. They convincingly tell themselves (and us) that they'll never again find someone else as funny, good looking and sensitive, who loves The Simpsons, eating cheesels and playing Xbox (sometimes all at the same time), as much as they do. And besides, they don't want to be single and lonely forever, so they tell us. (To me, this screams of dependency, not love.)

A blogger, whom we'll call S, writes in an email that she's having trouble understanding why her female friend, who has been together with a man for 11 years, has stayed in the relationship for as long as she has.

She writes: "Her parents have never even met his parents. She still lives at home and so does he. They are 30 and 33 respectively. She has been very unhappy with her relationship for the last two years and says she wants to be happy but is scared if she leaves him she will be lonely and not find anyone else."

So why stay? Low self-esteem perhaps? The fear of being alone? The fact she's become so dependant on the other person that she feels she simply cannot go on without him?

Despite the gamut of excuses, S still can't comprehend why anyone would put up with being with someone who is "rude, emotionally abusive, has severe mood swings and the list goes on". Neither can I.

And it's not only the women who are holding onto men for dear life.

S continues her email with the story of her male friend who has a girlfriend that is "a whinger and has recently developed an unhealthy alcohol drinking habit and is a complete psycho, meaning if he doesn't answer her call she will send him a threat via SMS of 'if you don't answer the phone I am going to come to your work and make a scene' so he is then forced to call her".

And it gets worse.

"Her mother also threatened his mother: 'If your son doesn't marry my daughter, I'll kill him.' Yet he still stays with her, even though they fight every day and he feels as though he is to blame for the way she carries on."

Ouch. His excuse to S for staying? "While he's fallen out of love with his girlfriend, he feels as though he owes it to her to be with her."

Owes it to her to be unhappy for the rest of his life? Owes it to her to be miserable and in a relationship with pulls him down, dampens his self-esteem and stunts his growth? I think he owes it to himself to give her the flick, and fast.

"If everyone thought the way he did, there would be a zero per cent divorce rate, the Family Court wouldn't even exist," S writes. Amen to that.

But we'd all be a bunch of miserable sods looking for someone else to rescue us from our miserable lives.

Life is too short to be unhappy, especially when we have a choice...

Have you been in a toxic relationship? Why do people stay in relationships that suck? Have you ever experienced an unhappy relationship and what was the final straw that made you leave? How did you eventually manage to finally break free?

While watching an episode of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy on Foxtel recently, it got me wondering: do our straight guys really need so much softening up? Would we honestly prefer it they shunned the boys' night out to sit home plucking their eyebrows, fretting over cuticles and putting the finishing touches on a rocket and parmesan salad?

True, men still have a lot to learn about love and sex (napery, candles and bed linen to name a few). And sure, we all sat glued to the hit TV show when it first popped onto our screens, and squealed with girly delight at the possibility that the disheveled, smelly and undomesticated could magically be transformed into the freshly plucked, prettied and preened.

But are women these days really turned on by a bloke who can cook, clean and knows his (Spanish, shallot, brown, spring) onions? Or has the appeal of the macho bloke returned?

Way back in 2000, thanks to David Beckham and his ilk, the hot new bloke on the block and date du jour was the metrosexual man. He sported nail polish, a head band, more moisturiser than our grandmothers and knew as much about crockery, cuisine and facial cleansers as he did about beer and football.

Even former Labour Party leader Mark Latham noticed the trend and reckoned that, because of it, Australia's male culture was in crisis.

"Australian mates and good blokes have been replaced by nervous wrecks, metrosexual knobs and tossbags," he wrote in his book A Conga Line of Suckholes.

But fast forward to today and it seems Latham has nothing to worry about.

Introducing the "machosexual'', dubbed by author Robert Young Pelton in the The Guardian newspaper as the antithesis of the metro.

According to Wikipedia, the machosexual is a man "who eschews modern trendy aesthetics in favor of more traditional 'manly' pursuit". And he's in hot demand.

Yep, many women are no longer into the tight-jean wearing, manicure-loving softies. Instead we're more turned on by men who can name members of the Ferrari Formula 1 team, fix a lawnmower, know the names of ten different power tools and smell like an old sports bag (OK, not that bad, but you get the drift).

We sigh with relief when he reveals he'd rather kill himself than buy "scruffing lotion" from Clinique, and adore his scruffy beard.

Men, are you worried you're a little too metro for the modern femme? Apparently the problem can easily be rectified by taking up a manly holiday adventure, causing you to get bruised and "smell bad", as writer Young Pelton puts it.

He reckons that once you've returned from roughing it out, "you will find yourself pursued by women who want to trace the outlines of your fresh pink scars, cheat on their boyfriends and ride too fast on your noisy motorcycle." He adds that "real women love to bag and tame machosexuals as much as metro men like to collect club remixes on their iPods".

Yet I still wonder; is it the metrosexual, or the machosexual who is making the women of today weak at the knees?

One very charming female friend of mine reckons macho men are all the rage, but a nice balance of metrosexuality always adds to the appeal.

"Who doesn't want someone who can look after himself with a little touch of domesticity?'' she says. "But when it comes down to the crunch, boys should be boys.'' Indeed.

My conclusion? As long as a man treats a woman with respect, has respect for himself (regardless of his odour, girth of his eyebrows or length of his toenails), and occasionally likes to shop (even if only once a year), the rest is unimportant.

As blogger Sean not Shawon writes; "Being cultured, knowledgeable, and having sophistication doesn't warrant being labeled as anything, the least of which being a metrosexual..."

Men, what are the qualities about you that turn women wild? Women, what qualities about the men do you love - macho or metro?

Quick question: Is it ever OK to settle for "not quite" Mr or Mrs Right? Never? After a toxic break-up when all your expectations have been tossed out the window? When you haven't had sex in god knows how long and you're ready to settle for anything with two legs and no criminal record?

With 2007 finally here, hundreds of emails are pouring into my inbox, posing the question of whether or not it's really possible to find the perfect partner. (And by the way, we all know that no one's perfect, so why the heck do we attempt to search for it anyway?)

"Are there any decent girls out there?" the blokes want to know. "Should I simply settle for someone who doesn't tick all my boxes?" a disgruntled single gal writes to me.

And this, I believe, is exactly where the problem lies...

The dating world is complex enough, but now we're all competing with unticked boxes, lengthy checklists and unrealistic expectations, running the gamut of everything from a perfect relationship (that word again) to getting on with your partner's mum, being instant bosom buddies with their mates, sharing the same passion for trekking the Himalayas, and agreeing on everything from what to watch on TV to who gets to drive on a Saturday night.

No wonder we girls are led to believe there's an official "man drought".

Instead, the more sagacious theory that I have behind the increasing number of single femmes and blokes today is this: we're just too darn picky.

That's right. When I took a quick survey of friends at the dinner table recently, I wasn't surprised to find that - despite our incessant whining over why we're single, unmarried or can't find a date - the fussiness is only getting worse.

So if your goal this year is to fall in love, I've decided to put together a few tips for you all. Look at them as small new year's resolutions if you can, and hopefully you'll fatten up your little black book for 2007 ...

Get rid of your checklist: Specifically the superficial items such as "must be tall, like dogs and speak with an English accent". (Damn!)

Decrease your expectations: We all know that when you go out looking for it and expecting it to happen, it never will. Enjoy yourself, go on many dates, find out what you're after and what you don't like and wait for it to come to you. It will when you're ready.

Turn off the television: Why? Because it gives us a false vision of how love should be, therefore increasing our expectations and causing us to be too picky all over again. Instead, read a good book, visit a museum, or better still, hit the gym - plenty of spunky singles are running around there, and they're not wearing much.

And finally, compromise: Ask any successful couple and they'll tell you that compromise is the key to a great relationship.

So should we settle for the "not quite" Mr or Mrs right?

"Absolutely not," says my newly married male friend when I ask him the question. "I just didn't realise her first name was 'always'." Plus I believe Angelina is already taken...

Are we too picky? Should we settle for "not quite" Mr or Mrs Right? Or wait for someone perfect to come along? Is there such a thing anyway?

Topic suggested by: James

Have a great weekend, and don't forget to check out Introductions, published in The Age every second Friday and devoted to Melbourne's singles, it features articles on single life, top spots to go and meet other singles, with hundreds of personal ads to browse.

If you do, you'd find out ahead of time what it's like to sleep in the same bed night after night; share a laptop and unclog their toilet. Plus it would be cheaper, you could halve the washing load and there'd be someone else to clean the dishes. What's not to love?

"It's absolutely necessary to live with someone before marriage," many of my friends in their late 20s and early 30s holler when I pose the question. "How can you not? It's like buying a car without a test drive, or a pair of shoes without trying them on."

True, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed we should all "live dangerously" if we want to reap the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment from life.

But moving in with someone is a whole different ball game from going the dangers of going bungy jumping, entering Australian Idol or taking a peak at a picture of Britney Spears, sans the undies...

Sure, if we are asked to move into our new partner's luxurious abode with park views, two bathrooms and a trained Chihuahua, our brains would light up as brightly as a kid's in a candy store. But the initial rush doesn't last. Nor does it translate into better relationships.

Now before you complain that it's 2007, and those ancient "living-in-sin" rules no longer apply, let me just say I've been frantically attempting to pool together some info that puts a positive spin on shacking up without the ring, but sadly folks, apparently it's just not the case.

In fact, while 60 per cent of Australians are living together before they get married, a BBC report on the subject concluded that partners who live together are nine times more likely to split up than those who get married.

Introducing the modern perils of serial monogamy. We live with one person for a few months, even years. Then, when things don't go our way, instead of working at them, like say, a married couple might, we simply pack up our things and move in with the next person.

Ouch. And you thought shacking up before the big commitment would improve your chances? Think again.

A Columbia University study found there's actually less chance of marrying a person when you live with them, with only 26 per cent of women and a scant 19 cent of the men surveyed marrying the person they cohabited with.

Dr Laura Schlessinger backs up the stats. She cites "shacking up with your honey" as one of the "Ten stupid things women do to mess up their lives" in her book of the same name.

And if that's not enough already for your don't-live-together-before-marriage arsenal, let's hop over to the bedroom for just a moment.

The findings are that those who live together before marriage do not have the best sex. (I'm not sure I believe it, but those living alone can still hope it ain't true.)

The blogger who calls herself The Truth is still undecided. She notes that, while Australian culture is big on moving in together before marriage, other cultures don't share the same reasoning.

"So which way is better?" she wants to know. "And if you do move in with a guy before marriage, how many relationships actually end up in marriage? Girls, how long did it take till he popped the question? And for those that married before moving in - do they regret not moving in together before?"

It's an interesting conundrum. Of course many believe something along the lines of, "Why would anyone buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

But as Nietzsche says, life's all about living dangerously ...

Would you live together before marriage? What are the pros and cons on each side? What do you think makes a more successful future?

Did you know that women no longer need a husband? They don't need them for buying a house, changing a tyre, having kids or zipping up. In fact, if you're a modern chick, why bother with a man at all?

That's the conclusion of an ever-gushing hydrant of research from psychologists, economists, social scientists, and even girl band The Pussycat Dolls, whose latest song gushes with the lyrics, "I don't need a man to make it happen ... I don't need a ring around my finger ... I can get off when you ain't around, oh!"

Hell, even Time magazine recently weighed in on the debate, posing the question "Who Needs a Husband?" on its cover.

Well girls, apparently not us. While research shows that single men get lonely on their own, and therefore are more inclined to want a wife, some say isn't the same for the modern femme.

To researchers, the modern woman who "has it all" doesn't get lonely, doesn't need a companion, doesn't want extra health-care benefits, and would rather work, bar hop and shop (with her own cash thank you very much), than let a husband ruin her wondrous life.

In fact statistics from The Guardian newspaper found that it's a whopping 50 per cent of married women who actually wished they hadn't said "I do."

But come on! Is this really the case? Are modern single femmes really the happier bunch? Are they truly better off without a husband?

"I don't need a husband, but I certainly want one," said Melinda Poole, founder of i-dont.com.au, a web portal for the previously married, who visit the site to meet other like-minded folks. And while the 10,000 monthly site visitors are after companionship, friendship or whatever-ship, no one loitering around there seems to be hankering after a groom.

I decided to ask my newly divorced girlfriend in New York whether she thought a husband might be necessary. "Absolutely not!" she told me. "I've never been happier," she said while eying the talent in the room and wondering which single's bar she was going to hit next. "Who needs a husband?" she slurred. "Certainly not me! My room is now pink. It's filled with shoes; my credit card has bounced and I can flirt, sleep with and drink as much as I please."

Time concurred. The story raged on, arguing that the single woman of today had "come into her own" and "men are no longer a necessity" when it comes to acquiring a house, a car, travel, or even having kids.

But as roughly 2 million of us Aussie women scour the planet for Mr Right, I still wonder whether maybe deep down, we all still yearn for a husband.

Such is the story of my career-orientated journalist friend, who I never thought would ever want to settle down. She's always been a goal-focused, I-don't-need-a-man, I'm-fine-on-my-own, single-life-is-the-bomb type of chick. Yet - shock, horror - she recently fell in love.

When she got the promotion she always dreamt of and it was time for her to move states, she suddenly realised how desperately she missed her new man and told me she was finally ready to get married. When I reminded her that she'd always told me "marriage is crazy!" and "we're all better off alone", she paused for a moment.

"That was before I discovered loneliness," she said.

While they say a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, it seems some fish do need a set of wheels after all...

Girls, do you need a husband? Men, do you need a wife? How important is having someone to share your life? Or would you prefer to go at it solo?

What is happiness? A pay rise? Losing weight? Death by chocolate? An orgasm? "Yes, yes, yes!" I hear many of you say. But more on that in a moment.

The Dalai Lama onced mused that the search for happiness is our sole purpose in life. Comedian Bob Monkhouse reckons the search is over when you marry a girl for love and later discover that she has money. My friend Hank believes it's winning the lotto.

But apparently both Monkhouse and Hank have it all wrong. Instead, a recent poll, which surveyed Illinois and British lotto winners, found that while winners did get an initial high from having more money in the pockets, it quickly wore off. After a few months the sudden millionaires were simply left with their usual range of happiness, but no happier.

So if money doesn't give us happiness, what does? The answer, apparently, is sex...

Yep, money won't bring you happiness, but a better sex life might.

Not surprised? Well according to research done by Dartmouth College economist David Blachflower and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England, it's sex that "enters so strongly [and] positively in happiness equations", not more money that puts a long term smile on our dial.

Just how was this juicy secret discovered? Well the eager researchers took a deeper look into the sexual activity and happiness levels of 16,000 people and found that doing it once a week (instead of the average once a month), is equivalent to the amount of happiness generated by getting an additional $65,000 of income!

Now that's a whole lot of grinning.

Of course the knowledge that sex equals happiness is nothing new. Meg Ryan certainly knew it in the film When Harry Met Sally, during the infamous orgasm scene carried out in Katz's Deli, New York, which prompted other customers to order exactly what she was having, and pronto.

So it was only fitting that, during a recent trip to New York, for research purposes of course, I would follow in Ryan's footsteps. Hence I headed off to the famous cafe in the hope of having some of what she was having.

After fighting off a few brash New Yorkers to get Meg's actual seat (I wasn't the only one who had travelled 10,000 miles in search of the happy bug), the combination of the icy New York weather, my overdrawn credit card and an increasingly sore throat led me to wonder whether the search for more happiness was in fact futile. If it wasn't a pastrami sandwich and a hot date, what the hell was it?

Perhaps the Dalai Lama was right when he said that "sooner or later our overall level of happiness tends to migrate back to a certain baseline".

It's the process psychologists have dubbed "adaptation". In other words, while a pay rise, fancy new car or hot date might spike our sense of happiness just for a little while, we quickly get used to it and the happy effect soon wears off.

That's why I'm not a tad bit envious at David Beckham's $US250 million pay deal. He might be happy now, but he'll soon adapt to it all and then he'll go back to being just as happy as the rest of us. Let's just hope the extra dosh helps wife Victoria to smile once in a while, or we might have to feed her a pastrami sandwich ...

Can money bring happiness? Or is a better sex life the answer?

What is happiness to you?

Sam and the City is back for 2007! Please chat here, post your topic suggestions and email me your thoughts and dating dilemmas. Looking forward to a great year with you all.